low friction mechanical roller bearing

[Thomas]

Regarding the "scrollerwheel"... I'm not really sure I understand the part about less friction than a conventional set of bearings.

When I observed the rotation of the device in the video, it didn't seem to spin very long at all. A similar mechanism with conventional roller bearings would have kept spinning much longer with the same amount of force that was used to start it.

The scrollerwheel is a unique mechanism and I have no doubt there are applications it is well suited for.

Tom

[DrWhat]

A device may have low friction but we still need to produce sufficient surplus energy to do work.

Bessler's wheel would have had some degree of low friction, but of course it was the surplus energy that overcame the remaining friction.

[AldenPark]

The bearings were the actual bearings but they were very low friction bearings. The wheel must have very low friction, so that rotational kinetic energy continues to increase, as it nonconservatively picks up more energy from the two-part gravitons. More power is extracted at larger angular speeds, until there is a balance between rotational kinetic energy extracted from the energetic two-part gravitons and rotational energy used up (for example by: work done, friction, sound energy, wind produced, and heating).

Graviton Evidence. Note that Foucault pendulum anomalies observed during total solar eclipses provide strong evidence of absorption (within the moon) of gravitons coming from the sun. Allais' Foucault pendulum observations during a total solar eclipse on 30 June 1954 may have caused Einstein to write to his good friend Besso in 1954 "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e. continuous structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." See "Infinite Energy" #87 p. 21 (2009) "The Eclipse Data of 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science" by Richard Moody, Jr., which gave reference of Pais, A. 1982. "Subtle is the Lord. . .The Science and Life of Albert Einstein", Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 467. In other words, he was prepared to give up his continuous structure theory of gravity and consider a switch to discrete entities as the correct basis for physics. More evidence has since accumulated of absorption of gravity (within the moon) coming from the sun during total solar eclipses. It would be unreasonable to reject that evidence. Given such evidence alone, one would be quite unreasonable to reject the idea of discrete gravitons. Much further evidence for the Bessler principle agrees with these discrete gravitons.

Production Methods for Orffyrean Roller Bearings. The file http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/GravitySummaryNews.txt discusses methods of how I think that the special low-friction mechanical Orffyrean roller bearings could be produced. I think that he used highly unusual production techniques (even by today's standards) as he needed to grow the low friction Orffyrean lobes and lobe holes on the surface by pattern replication. I think he discovered that nine intermediate rollers would just fit given the ratios required for replication of patterns, during hole and lobe-hole growth on the surface. See the file text, GravitySummaryNews.txt, with the figure so that one can understand that just nine rollers could fit. I will try to insert the image associated with the following URL.

http://www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/Fig9_Roller_Angles.JPG

[pequaide]

You are talking 300 years ago; better bearings can now be bought at any hardware store. The fact that you are looking for a bearing means you are looking at the wrong theory.

[Grimer]

A blast from the past, indeed. I agree with the idea of a graviton though. I see gravity as a vertical wind which implies it must have particles which interact with tangible matter.

[path_finder]

Dear LA4park,
Your concept of frictionless bearing is very interesting because it covers a lot of points independently discussed in this forum and not correlated yet.
When Bessler said he found a new source of forces, the Coriolis acceleration has not been discovered (and explained) at his time.
See here (again): http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 5480#65480
This Coriolis acceleration is coming from an double primitive motion of rotation, typically the 'jerk' concept of our friend Grimmer.

An interesting experiment can be conducted by this way:
Let's take a large bowl full of water and a perfect spherical iron ball.
Put them in your freezer (the ball aside the bowl, keeping the same temperature).
Few hours later put the ball on the bowl: IMHO it would be impossible to keep the ball on the bowl, wich normally will always move to the West direction.
Although the surface of the iced water is perfectly horizontal, the ball inertia will drive the ball because the rotation of the earth.

This behavior shall be also encountered with the gyroscope.
Unfortunately, even if the friction of the axis is very low, it will not rotate by itself.
At that level you must remember the experiment of Pr Laithwaite, where the spokes of his gyroscope are flexible and where the plane of these spokes is not vertical anymore because the rotation.
See here (again): http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0021#80021
If you build a such as device with a population of flexible spokes, oblige these spokes to remain in a not vertical plane, and let's rotate this assembly, there is a chance by inverting the process to obtain a self rotation, at the condition of frictionless bearing.
But even with an excellent frictionless bearing, there is still a residual torque before the device can start, explaining the need for the 'gentle push'.
This can also explain the need for the two elongated axles of the Bessler's wheel, because the torque of this gyroscope will be much more stronger (very marginal if the length of the axle would be shorter).
This can also explain why the wheel cannot roll by itself on the floor, and also it can explain the need for the both pillars fixed to the floor and the roof.
In addition I suspect Bessler to use a specific direction for his wheels, the plane of rotation being oriented Noth-South, in view to recover a maximum torque.

IMHO if we find a way for a vertical redirection of the Coriolis vector, we win!
Just few personal comments.

[nicbordeaux]

Path Finder, to quote you "and also it can explain the need for the both pillars fixed to the floor and the roof."

The actual pillars or just the pillar housings / casings ?

[path_finder]

Dear nicbordeaux,
I meant 'this can explain the fact the both pillars must be hardly fixed', in view to avoid the 'washmachine dance'. These pillars are the stand supporting the wheel, where the main axis of the wheel is passing through.

[nicbordeaux]

Thx for the clarification. I think the pillars supporting the bearing must be able to move, and the casing needs to be fixed. Interaction between the two.

[path_finder]

After a deep review of the aldenpark mechanism, it appears to me the cycloidal reductor is one of the way for the frictionless bearing.
Download the first video below and then read it with your favorite multimedia player in loop mode. IMHO you will observe the repartition of the forces on the inner rim, instead on the virtual central bearing.
Do the same with this other concept: '6x_rodsA.mpg' (second animation).
Another way to get also the same effect is the use of some flipping rods like in the third animation 'crutchesB.gif' (no contact at all with the central axis).

Dear nicbordeaux,
In the first video the central bearing don't move (you need just an excentric).

[AldenPark]

Not Coriolis. It is not the Coriolis force that provided the torque for the Bessler wheel but rather the Bessler principle.

Bessler Principle. The rotational kinetic energy comes from the time delayed downward blows of the attractive two-part gravitons (composed of the discrete electric fields coming from opposite fundamental charges, which discrete fields happen to be traveling together). We are dealing with a pervasive but-little-discussed new paradigm (the Bessler principle) if we want to explain how the Bessler wheel received its energy.

Arguments Against Very Low Friction Are Incorrect. One can create fancy arguments against rotational kinetic energy being generated by a wheel rotating about a horizontal axis using a bearing rotating with extremely low friction. Such arguments will vaporize (be understood to be clearly incorrect), when a version of the spring 1968 McKinley low friction demonstration is replicated. Such arguments will also vaporize, when an astronaut bothers to rotate a coin in space at very low friction about a horizontal axis. Horizontal is taken to be perpendicular to the g "fields" of the earth, the sun, and the moon.

Such arguments against extremely low friction should already have vaporized, when one considers the very large amount of evidence in favor of the Bessler principle.

Such arguments against extremely low friction should have already vaporized in the face of the obvious. If one has some method for collecting rotational kinetic energy from a wheel rotating about a horizontal axis, one would not be wise to give up some portion of that preciously collected energy to friction. For purposes of collection of more rotational kinetic energy, the less energy given up to any sort of wheel friction is better. - AEP - 30 May 2011

[AldenPark]

Bessler Principle. I think that all wheels (of all sizes, rotating about horizontal axes) acquire rotational kinetic energy, according to the Bessler principle, because of the two pulls down by each graviton.
My Free Books. See the many evidences for this within my 18 March 2019 book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled. I had been working on or writing my book for at least seven years. I would hope that people not lightly dismiss my book without proper study. At https://gravityunveiled.home.blog/ a free .pdf file of my book may be downloaded (as well as free 18 March 2019 .pdf files of my decoded versions of the little books by Bessler and Leedskalnin). People can read the portions that they are most interested in reading.
Very-Low-Friction Orffyrean-Roller-Bearing. Normally with ordinary friction for rotations about horizontal axes, the energy is lost and the wheels slow down. Bessler built extremely-low-friction mechanical-roller-bearings, which allowed the acquired kinetic energy to accumulate until the angular speed was in equilibrium with kinetic-energy-removing-friction (often air friction). See 9.1 Low Friction Orffyrean Roller Bearing of my book. See Fig. 58 and Fig. 67 (or see below) for the primary geometry of his bearings. Also see APPENDIX B ORFFYREUS’S LITTLE BOOK.
Bearing Production. There is danger (from vapor containing mercury), while one grows the surfaces of the Orffyrean roller bearing. When completed, a finest-steel lobe stays in pure rolling without slipping contact with its finest-steel lobe-hole for 25 degrees, according to a portion of Bessler’s bearing specs. We don’t have anything today that is comparable to this class of a bearing. Normally as a cylinder rolls over a surface a point on a cylinder stays in pure-rolling-without-slipping contact with the surface for close to zero degrees before the point lifts off the surface. My Table B.4. “Bearing specifications from Bessler’s final figure.� provides 11 bearing specifications from his symbolic final figure. Bessler had symptoms of having the Mad Hatter’s disease from the mercury vapor that he exposed himself to. During surface growth finely ground ferromagnetic materials were preferentially attracted to magnetic outcropping on the lobe side. Then fine gunpowder spheres on the lobe-hole side were squished/fired to dig out more on the lobe-hole side. Surrounding mercury acted as micro-short gun-barrels, with miniature guns fired at point-blank range. Bessler grew his fine lobes, while he grew his fine lobe-holes. He had about half a degree from the bearing center to grow outward his lobes. The lobe and lobe-hole pattern grown on the surface of an intermediate cylinder surface has the pattern replicated throughout the entire bearing interior surfaces. On a fine scale, Bessler grew his tiny lobes, while he dug out his lobe-holes. After all the fine lobes and lobe-holes were grown (by his finest-steel metal-gardening), the loose formation materials were completely flushed out. It is dangerous to grow the wonder-bearings, unless one is protected from exposure to the mercury vapor.
Further Bearing Evidences. In section XLVII (p. 296 English translation by John Collins of p. 105 German) Bessler wrote in Apologia Poetica ‘ “Has it ever come about that a person of eminence has seen the interior of my invention?� To this I answer – no.’ But the eminent Karl saw within the interior of Bessler’s Kassel wheel. The interior of his wheel was not his invention. Bessler was stating the truth in his answer. His actual invention was his special roller bearing, within which Karl did not see its bearing invention interior surface. I was a little surprised that Bessler would be so direct. Bessler could have been more direct if he stated, “My invention is not the interior of my wheel but rather I invented a very special wonder bearing that is quite difficult to produce.� but Bessler wouldn’t dare be that direct. Anyway, that resolves the apparent information conflict. Using bent triangle-like planned excess ends of the containing cylinder, Bessler closed off the ends on his roller bearings (but not touching the central axle cylinder so as not to create friction) so that one could not see within the interior of his bearings. No one could see that there were nine nearly-touching intermediate-rolling-cylinders.
The bearing invention also explains why Bessler destroyed his Kassel wheel after the bearings were privately inspected, without Bessler being present. According to his prior obligation to not divulge the interior of the wheel, Karl didn’t realize that Bessler was actually much more concerned about protecting the actual invention of the wonder-roller-bearings from being examined, than he was in protecting the ruse interior of the wheel. AEP – 9 Apr 2019